Re: [PATCH] soundwire: qcom: use signed variable for error return

On Wed 31 Mar 02:21 CDT 2021, Vinod Koul wrote: > We get warning for using a unsigned variable being compared to less than > zero. The comparison is correct as it checks for errors from previous > call to qcom_swrm_get_alert_slave_dev_num(), so we should use a signed > variable instead. > >

Re: [PATCH] soundwire: qcom: use signed variable for error return

On 31-03-21, 09:41, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > On 3/31/21 2:21 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: > > We get warning for using a unsigned variable being compared to less than > > zero. The comparison is correct as it checks for errors from previous > > call to qcom_swrm_get_alert_slave_dev_num(), so

Re: [PATCH] soundwire: qcom: use signed variable for error return

On 3/31/21 2:21 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: We get warning for using a unsigned variable being compared to less than zero. The comparison is correct as it checks for errors from previous call to qcom_swrm_get_alert_slave_dev_num(), so we should use a signed variable instead.

[PATCH] soundwire: qcom: use signed variable for error return

We get warning for using a unsigned variable being compared to less than zero. The comparison is correct as it checks for errors from previous call to qcom_swrm_get_alert_slave_dev_num(), so we should use a signed variable instead. drivers/soundwire/qcom.c: qcom_swrm_irq_handler() warn: